“Start-ups, or market entries lead to new business development, whereas incumbent firms might be forced to dissolve by the increased competition of the new firms. More indirectly, the new businesses and the removal of older, perhaps less efficient businesses, might lead to improved competitiveness and economic growth.”

From van Praag and Versloot (2007).

The above quote is from a paper on entrepreneurship. Pretty much anyone who studies entrepreneurship has at least passing familiarity with some aspects of Austrian economics. The above quote struck me for showing the difference between the mainstream view of competition and the Austrian view. For Austrians competition is a process; you compete with rivals by offering better terms to potential trading partners. For mainstream economists competition is a state; when there are lots of market actors there is competition.

The first use of competition is Austrian: new firms out-compete old firms. The second is mainstream: getting rid of inefficient firms leads to “improved competitiveness.” They don’t write “entry of new firms force old firms to be more competitive,” but “a change in the makeup of the market results in more competition.”

I think a lot of mainstream, equilibrium based economics is really just short-hand for the complex processes Austrians think about. But I think people forget that it’s shorthand and that leads to thinking about the economy statically, like some thing with a certain arrangement that can probably be rearranged. The difference between the two concepts of competition is a reflection of this. A market with lots of different firms is probably competitive, but that’s no guarantee. We need to think about how long those firms have been doing what they’re doing, and that leads us to see how industries with few (or even one) firm may still face competition.